tv PBS News Hour PBS September 19, 2014 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: secretary of state kerry said today there is a role for iran in the effort to combat islamic state militants, but in an interview with the newshour, iran's foreign minister takes aim at the american strategy. >> nobody can force anybody in our region. we have influence in iraq, we have influence in syria, we have influence in the region. the reason we have influence is that we do not impose our will. >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. also ahead, scotland votes to remain part of the u.k., but with hopes of more power and autonomy. >> woodruff: we head out to the wilds of the american west where a younger generation is pushing the bounds of how to appreciate
nature with extreme sports. >> certainly we have a responsibility to manage for some of these new uses, but as we've seen the activities, it looks like a fire storm. it took off, gained in popularity. >> woodruff: and it's friday, david brooks and e.j. dionne are here, to analyze the week's news. those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's "pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.
>> i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved, staying engaged. they are not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is, "how did i end up here?" i started schwab with those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
>> woodruff: france joined the u.s. in the skies over iraq today, conducting its first air strikes on the islamic state group. military video showed attacks on a logistics depot, plus a munitions and fuel dump. officials said dozens of militants were killed, and president francois hollande promised more to come within limits. >> ( translated ): other actions are expected in the coming days with the same goal to weaken this terrorist organization, and come to the aid of iraqi authorities, by that i mean iraqi troops and kurdish peshmerga based in iraq. there are no french troops on the ground, only planes which, in liaison with iraqi authorities and in coordination with our allies, are weakening the terrorist organization. >> woodruff: back in baghdad, car bombings killed at least 30 people at a shiite mosque and markets.
and in washington, obama signed a bill to arm syrian rebels. sectarian fighting in yemen escalated sharply today as shiite rebels battled sunni militiamen in the capital. the rebels attacked the headquarters of state tv in sanaa, after surging out of northern yemen in recent months. the pro-u.s. government is largely caught between the warring factions. the world health organization is appealing for renewed efforts against ebola in west africa, despite the murders of eight health workers. their team was attacked in a remote part of guinea. meanwhile, a three-day national lockdown began in sierra leone, to slow the disease. aid workers went door to door today with health tips and soap. and "bloomberg news" reported the centers for disease control now estimates a worst case scenario of 550,000 cases, before the outbreak subsides. n.f.l. commissioner roger
a storm of domestic vines over n.f.l. players, roger goodell said new rules over personal conduct are coming and acknowledged mishandling the case of former ravens star ray rice but said now i will get it right. >> the same mistakes can never be repeated. we will do whatever it is necessary to ensure that we are thorough in our review process and that our conclusions are reliable. we will get our house in order first. >> woodruff: goodell said he does not want to resign. also today, president obama launched a new effort against sexual assaults on college campuses. the "it's on us" campaign aims to send a message that it's everyone's responsibility. the president criticized what he called the "quiet tolerance of sexual assault."
in the philippines, widespread flooding from a tropical storm and monsoon rains shut down manila today with neck-high water in places. the floods drowned whole sections of manila after more than 10 inches of rain fell over a 24-hour period. at least three people died and some 37,000 others were displaced. drug maker glaxo-smith-kline has been fined nearly $500 million dollars for bribing doctors in china. the police ministry said british national mark reilly-- the company's former china manager-- paid doctors to use glaxo's products, beginning in 2009. he was ordered today to leave the country immediately. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 13 points to close at 17,279.
the nasdaq fell 13, to close at 4579. and the s-and-p dropped a point, to 2010. for the week, the dow gained 1.7 percent. the s-and-p was up 1.3 percent. and the nasdaq rose a fraction of a percent. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour. iran's foreign minister on how to deal with the islamic state group. voters in scotland reject independence from the u.k. chinese e-commerce giant alibaba sells its first shares on the new york stock exchange. getting an extreme view of natural beauty on federal land in utah. and david brooks and e.j. dionne on the weeks news. >> woodruff: now to iran and our interview with foreign minister mohammad javad zarif. he is in new york this week for the so called p-5 plus one talks on that country's nuclear program. as questions loom over whether a deal can be reached by a late november deadline and what will happen if there is no agreement. earlier today, our chief foreign affairs correspondent margaret warner asked about that, the u.s. strategy in fighting the
islamic state militant group, and why tehran has ruled out working with washington to defeat the organization. >> warner: minister zarif, thank you for joining us. >> very good to be with you. >> warner: today, france joined the u.s. in launching airstrikes in iraq against the isis militants. do you think that's going to be an effective strategy to counter these militant forces? >> well, i believe the international community should come to realize that this is a common threat, a common challenge and it requires a common response. in our view, the response should come from the region and supported by the international community, not the other way around. we have been cooperating with the government of iraq and the government of-- or the regional government of kurdistan in order to defeat these terrorists, because we consider these terrorists a threat to all nations in the region and beyond because of all these foreign fighters that you have. >> warner: so you and president obama are really on the same
page on this, that is, that international community can assist maybe from the air, training and equipping, but not getting involved on the ground? >> well, i believe the iraqis themselves are quite capable of liberating their territory. what the international community needs to do is to prevent assistance to the terrorists, which has been coming, unfortunately, over the past three, four years, from various quarters in the region and outside the region. >> warner: so you're talking about saudi arabia, some of the other gulf states, their help with financing and training? you're talking about turkey, that's allowed foreign fighters to cross over into iraq and syria? >> well, i'm not in the business of naming names. we are willing to work with them, particularly with our friends in the region, in order to defeat this threat, but defeat it fundamentally, not simply by military action. >> warner: but by all accounts president rouhani's government has rebuffed overtures from president obama's government to actually cooperate
>> because we were not convinced that the united states government was serious. i'm sure that what happened yesterday in the house and the senate, approving the request of president obama for financing the syrian opposition, does not correspond well with an attempt to fight terrorism. if you undermine the central government in syria. that would enable the i.s. terrorists and to gain even more territory. we see this as basically contradiction in terms of trying to defeat isis, but at the same time funding those who are trying to undermine the very government that is withstanding isis terrorists. those forces who are operating on the ground in syria are unfortunately isis and people of the same color. very... >> warner: all of them? >> almost, a majority of them. at least a majority of those who control any territory in syria, are either isis or jabhat al- nusra or other fringe al-qaida groups.
>> warner: al-qaida-linked groups. >> we do not believe that supporting these groups will help the process of democratization and respect for the will of the people in syria. >> warner: but you are a major patron-- you are a major patron of the syrian government? can you not use your influence with the syrian government to in fact encourage them, force them to make such an inclusive arrangement with their own opposition? >> actually, nobody can force anybody in our region. we have influence in iraq, we have influence in syria, we have influence in the region. the reason we have influence is that we do not impose our will on the countries in the region. >> warner: well, but many would point out that the shiite-backed hezbollah fighters have in fact moved up from lebanon to assist president assad, but let me move on to the nuclear issue. one reason you're here early before u.n.g.a. week, which is the nuclear negotiations, you face a two-month deadline now to
finish this second phase and really finish a deal. do you think there's any prospect of getting there? >> well, i think there's every prospect of getting there, provided that people want to address a problem, not the constituencies. there are two ways of resolving this problem. one is to try to resolve this problem, and the other one is try to appease those who do not see any resolution, whatever the parameters, that resolution may be in their interests. so if you abandon the second alternative and put our focus on the first alternative, then i believe a solution is at hand. iran does not want nuclear weapons. iran does not need nuclear weapons. the only problem, if i may, is this basically infatuation, obsession with sanctions. sanctions do not achieve any objective. sanctions simply put pressure on the people. >> warner: but those in the united states that don't trust iran say, "well, iran has an obsession with building a gigantic nuclear infrastructure that they don't need for energy purposes, that will be nuclear weapons-ready."
i mean, don't you have a problem of the hard-liners on both sides, when you're talking about constituencies? >> well, there may be lunatics everywhere. >> warner: ( laughs ) >> but no serious person in iran wants to build a nuclear weapon, because people have very serious strategic calculations. what we can suggest to people there is a lot of mistrust to go around. i mean, iranians don't trust the united states. we can change that, and it's important for all of us to try to instead of living in the past, to try to write a new history. and writing a new history is to try to come to arrangements that would scientifically prevent iran from building a nuclear bomb. >> warner: so if the iranian government wants to persuade the rest of the world that, as you say, the intentions are purely peaceful, why not agree to the much lower level of centrifuges, number of centrifuges that the united states and the western powers are insisting upon? >> because we're not here to accept arbitrary decisions. we're here to negotiate.
but what we are suggesting is not that you have to take this or leave it. we are saying that let's consider together how best we can do this. we have agreed to limit, for a certain number of years, the number of centrifuges that will be spinning. and that is out of no necessity, simply in order to create confidence. but i'm not prepared to accept any arbitrary numbers. >> warner: okay, now, of course, iran then wants all of these sanctions rolled back and lifted. many of those would require, to be permanently lifted, u.s. congressional approval. as you well know, there's a lot of opposition to that. would iran accept something less for instance, just having president obama waive those? >> well, obviously i do not engage in negotiations on the air, but we understand u.s. politics. we understand the constraints that president obama is facing. as we don't accept them asking us to do the impossible, we will not ask them to do the impossible. >> warner: so if president obama wanted to do something of an end
run around congress, that would be enough assurance for you? >> it's up to him. we deal with the government. of course, we know the complexities, the domestic complexities involved. but as sovereign state, we deal with the united states government, as a sovereign state. we do not interfere in the internal domestic politics of the united states. if president obama promises us to do something, we will accept and respect his promise. >> warner: so is an extension beyond the november 24th deadline possible? >> i don't think so, and i'm not prepared at this stage to entertain that idea. i'm not saying that november 24st is the doomsday. i'm saying that we should put all our energy into reaching agreement by that time. >> warner: so no brinksmanship? >> i believe this issue requires statesmanship, not brinksmanship, and i'm prepared to exercise as much of that as i can possibly do. >> warner: despite the political price president rouhani and you
and your government are paying for this at home? >> well, leadership requires courage, and i hope that everybody is prepared to exercise that courage. i believe we are at the point in history that we can in fact what we do has an impact on the future of our region and the future of the perceptions of two nations towards one another. so we should seize this opportunity. >> warner: minister sharif, thank you so much. >> good to be with you. >> woodruff: on our website, you can see more of margaret's interview with foreign minister zarif, including his comments on "washington post" journalist jason rezaian, who has been jailed in tehran for almost two months. >> woodruff: well, the votes are in and the "no's" have it. polls had flip-flopped in recent weeks, but in the end, scotland's residents decided to stay in their 307 year union
with the united kingdom. a dreary mist shrouded the scottish capital of edinburgh this morning, matching the moods of 1.6 million people who'd voted for independence only to see it lose. >> it shows that still there are a lot of people in scotland that didn't want that. it's not a landslide vote so we think that's a good thing overall even if it is still no because it's going to show that we're not all happy with the way things are. >> woodruff: the official announcement came in the early morning hours. >> the majority of valid votes cast yesterday by the people of scotland in response to the referendum question, "should scotland be an independent country?" were in favor of no. ( cheers and applause ) from the "no" campaign headquarters the cheer was deafening. >> i'm happy that in the morning
i'm gonna wake up scottish and i'm gonna wake up british. i'm just so happy. >> woodruff: the leader of the no side, alistair darling, was triumphant. >> the people of scotland have spoken. ( cheers and applause ) we have chosen unity over division and positive change rather than needless separation. >> woodruff: the breakdown showed 55% voted to stay with the united kingdom, while 45% voted to leave. and the unprecedented turnout topped 85%. despite his disappointment, despite his disappointment, yes campaign leader alex salmond said the turnout was a huge point of pride. >> this has been a triumph for the democratic process and participation in politics. >> woodruff: salmond has been at the forefront of scotland's pro- independence movement for decades, but today he announced he's resigning as scottish first minister. >> we lost the referendum vote but scotland can still carry the political initiative.
scotland can still emerge as the real winner. for me as leader, my time is nearly over. but for scotland, the campaign continues and the dream shall never die. in london, with the threat of separation past, prime minister david cameron renewed his promise to begin granting scotland more powers. >> we have delivered on devolution under this government and we will do so again in the next parliament. the three main pro-union parties have made commitment, clear commitments for further powers for the scottish parliament. we will ensure that those commitments are honored in full. even so, there were complaints from some in cameron's own conservative party ranks that the promises are too generous. and queen elizabeth issued her own statement, speaking of her
enduring love of scotland and urging the entire nation to work together in mutual respect and support. for more on the significance of the result of the referendum and what comes next, we turn to louise richson, principal and vice chancellor at the university of st. andrew's. and washington bureau chief of the economist magazine. welcome to both of you. louise richardson, were you surprised at the margin of victory for the no vote? it was 10, almost 11 points. >> i think everyone was surprised by the margin of victory but we all had so little to go on because this was such an unprecedented occasion and we were seeing 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds vote for the first time, an lect trait where only 30% recently registered, a turnout of 85%, so it was very difficult to predict but i think most were surprised by the
margin of victory. >> woodruff: david rennie, were you surprised? >> i think so. the poll was safe and solid for the no camp till a few weeksing a. you had a 20 point lead for the camp to keep the u.k. together and that lead collapsed in the last two or three weeks and all that movement seemed to be with lower-income, left-wing, often slightly older voters. so there seemed to be a big shift taking place. one of the first analysis of what happened last night is they didn't turn out in quite as massive numbers as some of the more pro union voters. >> woodruff: we're now being told that, no, there won't be independence for scotland but there will be a big change in the relationship between scotland and london, the home government, and, as well as a change for wales, england, for northern ireland. >> i think the referendum in
scotland will prove to be a catalyst for constitution change throughout the united kingdom. in the past few weeks, as the london parties decided they actually could lose this campaign, even though they had been somewhat complacent for much to have the campaign, they promised divo max, significant new powers for scots if they would vote no. they promised for tax raising powers, more powers over issues like benefits which are important to people who are voting and this means, i think, that there will be more power going to scotland, but it raises the question of what's called in britain a question for westminster where english members of parliament can vote only -- scottish members of parliament can vote only on issues pertaining to english constituencies but english constituents can't vote for
scots. it's time for change and i think we've seen prime minister cameron today indicate he's going to address those concerns. >> david rennie, is it believed that the government is going to carry through on these promises? >> yeah, i can imagine that here in the united states this may seem a bit esoteric. but i think more people need to understand that what really has happened even with a vote to stay together is that the sleeping beast is english nationalism, because today some think the scots were bribed to stay with more privileges. what's happened is they have exclusive rights over the scottish schools but now have a say of what happens down in england.
the english are five-sixth of the population of this of the united kingdom. they feel suddenly shoved into second place and the scots have been bribed with all these promises and that's an unprecedented thing to have english nationalism stalking around as a big political force putting pressure on david cameron the prime minister. >> woodruff: so coming out of this, the u.k. is more politically unsettled? >> that's not necessarily a good thing. i think british people are now very much engaged. it has been an extraordinary exercise in democracy the last few months in scotland. we've never seen anything like it. few democracies have. it's worth remembering many countries fought several wars over whether one region had a right to succeed and here in britain it's been with a democratic vote that everybody accepting the will of the majority, a peaceful, robust debate. so i think it is a real statement of the strength of british democracy and if it's
unsettled, that's food because means the public is more engaged. >> woodruff: david renney, what about the independence movement itself? is it going to continue? >> you've seen the leader of the independence movement resigning because of the loss. he will be replaced but he is kind of irreplaceable. scotland is a small country. he was really the absolutely dominant sort of big political beast. he was the really talented politician up there. personal i think the thing to keep an eye on is the sleeping giant the five-sixths of the country, the english parliament, exclusive rights to vote on english subjects. this is a big fight about power. scotland is basically a left wing country. england has a narrow conservative majority. the country as a whole is finely balanced. so this is a blue country, red country, purple, gigantic power
struggle. >> woodruff: what does that mean in terms of u.k.'s relationship with other countries, the united states, europe and others? >> there can be little doubt that britain would have been very weakened that scotland decided to separate. the whole question of britain's membership, england's membership in the e.u. is subject to yet another referendum. so i think, going forward, most countries like to deal with unitary actors and few countries can really understand the depth of domestic politics in other countries and looks as though english-british domestic politics will be more complex which will complicate relationships with other countries but the fundamentals are more effective. >> sounds like that's what you're saying. >> a global partner for america or now an increasing number of english who are frankly like switzerland, rich and inward
looking and shunning the rest of the world. they're definitely out there. >> woodruff: we thank you both. >> thank you. >> woodruff: chinese e-commerce giant, alibaba, took wall street by storm today. the company had its initial public offering on the new york stock exchange and it appears to be the largest of all time: one hundred million shares traded in the first ten minutes. more than $25 billion was raised. it's a moment that highlights the power of china's growing middle class. hari sreenivasan has the story from our new york studios. >> sreenivasan: to give you some sense of the company's size, alibaba earned more last year than amazon and ebay combined. the company was founded 15 years ago and often described as combining elements of google, amazon and ebay into one web operation. the firm co-founded by a former teacher jack ma is now valued at
more than $230 billion. shares opened with a frenzy today, nearly $94 each. yet for all of that, alibaba is hardly a household name in the u.s. to help fill in the picture, joined by david kirkpatrick, looking at how technology is changing business. he's also author of the facebook effect. so we've heard a little bit about alibaba. why is it so significant in opening today? >> well, i think the company was brilliantly market in the i.p.o. process and the first time a major chinese internet company has gone open in the united states. there's two other gigantic companies. jack ma the c.e.o. and founder you mentioned is a uniquely charismatic individual who generated enormous excitement among investors. >> sreenivasan: they describe this as a mix of amazon, ebay. explain what does alibaba do?
>> it's hard to explain. it does so many different things. it started out being a broker for particularly people outside china wanting to buy chinese goods. then they got into a more ebay business inside china where small retailers would sell to consumers, et cetera. now they have a very popular business on top of the others called teen mall which is a business where established brands sell to individual consumers like a major u.s. consumer brand would have a t-mall site and chinese consumers would buy from them via alibaba. but they have their own logistics and delivery company, their own payment service and their own money market which offers higher interest rates, they just bought half a soccer team, a movie studio. they are unbounded in their ambitions but they're still primarily an e-commerce company. >> reporter: how successful are they at e-commerce? >> so successful they almost have a monopoly business in the
chinese patrick. over 80% of chinese markets in china go over alibaba. and immerse is more important in chinese economy than the u.s. economy. >> sreenivasan: not all chinese are on the internet yet. >> no, only half chinese citizens are on the internet and pretty much any one of them is likely to be an alibaba customer. >> sreenivasan: why did so many investors, especially institutional ones, want to get in on this price even if it was adjusted hiring and higher. >> they're 40 plus operating margin profits. that's high for an internet company. and 80% market share in the primary market. that's all investors need to here. the growth has been strong in recent quarters. a fast growing company, high margins, dominant market share. investors understand that language.
>> sreenivasan: is this a proxy bet on the chinese economy? >> i think that's a good way to think about it, a positive way to think about it. in effect, by so many werners buying this stock at such a high price, they're saying china is our friend, we believe in the future to have the chinese economy, we believe in the future of in effect the chinese government because let's face it, the way business works in china is if the government doesn't want it to happen, it doesn't. so there's a tighter bond between the government and business in china. even jack ma said today the whole way he operated his company throughout history is be in love with the government but don't marry it. try to do what wants. >> live and die by the government. what is the down side on chinese government policy changes that could have a ripple effect on the share price today? >> there's certainly a potential down side there but i think the chinese government appreciates so much what alibaba is doing economically and today what it's done for the image of china, i
don't think you will see them coming down on alibaba anytime soon. but you've never seen one company be so vetted to policies. >> sreenivasan: what's the concerns about the price and what the future of the company is. >> certainly valuation is a significant concern if you're a cautious investor. it's got a high multiple now. but there's two sort of big other questions. the first is the one we just mentioned which is government influence and regulatory change because in china if the government regulators decide something different and you didn't expect, your whole business can go out the window overnight. i don't think that will happen here. the other is the governance of alibaba. the way it's structured as a business is extremely complex and lengthy and not very transparent. so investors don't have the window into what's really happening inside the company that they'd have with a western company.
it's not audit in the same way. what people brought today is not even the actual assets of the company. they bought shares in a cayman islands-based holding company that gets profits from alibaba, and has an ironclad deal to get the profits, at least they say it's ironclad, but it's not the assets of the company. it's not unusual for the chinese internet to have that kind of a deal but it's not the way, you know, western investors typically invest. >> sreenivasan: david kirkpatrick, thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. >> woodruff: now to the second in our two-part look at land disputes in the american west. last night jeffrey brown looked at a fight between local residents and the federal government over closing down a canyon, rich in archaeological treasures, to motorized vehicles. tonight, jeff has the story of a very different split over how to enjoy and experience the natural beauty.
>> brown: stretch a high-tech nylon line some 400 feet above a canyon near moab, utah. >> do you want to attention before we walk? >> it's tight, actually. >> brown: strap on a harness. i like feeling the line between my toes. >> brown: and step out into the air. >> whoo! >> brown: it's called high-lining, done on public lands, a perfectly legal activity that most of us, including your correspondent, who stayed far back from cliff's edge, would never dream of undertaking. >> i'm always a little nervous no matter how many i do. >> brown: but they do this sort of thing several times a week. >> you are forced to narrow your focus and i'm thinking of the anchor on the other side and how bad i want to get there and how long it's been since i took my last step and when i will take my next step and what my foot
feels like on the line. >> it's a rush of overwhelming happiness because you've done something you were terrified of and you overcame that fear and all of a sudden you're proud of yourself. you feel empowered like you can do anything, really. >> brown: in high lining, sky walkers are tethered to the line. as this video of scott rogers shows, that's not the case inout sports like base jumping in which jumpers launch themselves off stationary objects like cliffs and pull a parachute at key moments. timing is everything, room for error very small. rogers and ashburn know people who died when the wind blew them back into the cliff or their parachute was opened too late. but that doesn't stop them and certainly doesn't stop them from capturing their exploits on video and posting them online. >> i love spreading the joy because i feel like we know the secret about life, about when
you do things that are scary and you overcome your fears, not only is it the most fun you will ever have but it's so empowering it continues through the rest of your life. >> it's taking something part of our life and showing it to the world and saying, hey, look, you can have fun doing these things you didn't even realize existed. >> brown: there's, of course, another way of looking at and being a part of this extraordinary landscape, one that's quieter, calmer, and sees the beauty, the drama, the exeems in the land itself. the red rock walls, towering spires, rivers, and plunging canyons. in this way of experiencing the wilderness, the long walk, the light footprint, man's small part in the universe take precedence. >> the question is what sort of land protection and what sort of ethic you want to evolve with the younger generation.
part of what the struggle is now is for quiet users to have the space they need. >> colorado historian and nature writer andrew gullford says cultural shifts in how people view the outdoors have raised important new questions. >> we have a long tradition of public land use in the american west. the new kinds of outdoor activities, though, the extreme sport activities, there's not a lot of nature involved. so today's generation is treating outdoors as a dirty gym, and that's not what it was thought about with the 1954 wilderness act and others. so those conservation laws were about preserving nature for nature's sake and we've got a new generation of extreme sports enthusiasts who simply want to go out, use the outdoors, photograph themselves with, you
know, special little cameras, and then hit the pub by dark and talk about their exploits. ♪ >> brown: there has been much talk about this particular exploit, the rope swing at corona arch, an iconic landmark outsidoutside moab. the youtube video put out in 2012 has more than 25 million views online. ♪ it also got the attention of the federal bureau of land management which had recently taken over the arch from the state of utah in a land swap, and which administers so much of this state and other parts of the west. >> it's just created over time. >> brown: megan crandall is a spokeswoman. so we learned about this on videos we see. how do you learn about it? >> the same way. >> brown: what's your reaction? >> holy cow. i was blown away. that's incredible. >> brown: you have to figure
out how to manage this. >> right. certainly we have a responsibility to manage the uses. but as we've seen with these activities, it was like a fire storm, it took off and gained in popularity and we saw research in that surge. >> brown: the surge of views caused one death and one serious injury by rope swingers who misjudged how long the ropes needed to be. b.l.m. policy is that people use public lands at their ownriesing, but the agency looks at a variety of factors including damage to the rocks and the impact on those who want to experience the arch the old fashioned way. ♪ and while they study these impacts, federal officials proposed a ban on rope activities at corona. >> we're putting out for public comment a suggestion that we institute a temporary two-year restriction on rope activities to give us the time and space we need to evaluate if continuing to allow the activities is the most appropriate use of the
area. >> brown: the moab monkeys say they love the land, too, and are happy to share it. >> it was a really long flight. >> brown: but haley ashburn says there are plenty of public places for those who complain about the disruption of extreme sports. >> if they want peach, they should go to arches or any national park. they're called the no fun allowed zones. >> brown: the national barks? yes, nice and quiet, no base jumping, nobody going to be screaming and yelling and having a really amazing time. >> brown: the b.l.m.'s mad megan crandall says it works both ways. there's also plenty of room for rope activities if the band is playing in corona arch. >> there are still plenty of places to engage in these activities, but at least for us we want to take the time to really think about whether it's appropriate for those to continue here. >> brown: the b.l.m. is taking
public comments on the issue the end of this month. >> woodruff: this week congress gave its support to arming moderate syrian rebels, but there seemed to be a divide between the military and white house over the need for ground troops to take on the islamic state group. we analyze that and more with brooks and dionne. that's new york times columnist david brooks and washington post columnist e.j. dionne mark shields is away. welcome to you both. >> good to be with you. >> woodruff: so the islamic state group. the president got the support, david, that he wanted from the house and the senate to arm syrian rebels. the polls, though, are showing the public is saying they don't think this strategy is going to work, even though they agree with the specifics. as we just said, the generals are saying, hey, we are going to need ground troops, despite what the president said. how does all this limit him? how much does it complicate what
the u.s. is trying to do? >> the first thing is i was impressed by how big the majorities were. seems like when you look at politics, the republican party shifted dramatically on public policy and the tea party, too. there were people on either end against us, but at least in this one issue, preventing the caliphate from existing in iraq and syria, pretty solid majorities. what's happening now, we're entering the mission creek phase. it's pretty clear the idea of just using air war fair is not going to get i.s.i.s. out of the cities and the generals are beginning to think that through, probably will need some special forces on the ground, not a big invasion. it's much less multi-lateral than george w. bush's invasion of iraq a decade ago or whatever. what we have is a big gap
between what we have so far committed and what we've required to accomplish the mission and the coming debate is how much we increase that commitment. >> so the strategy is only a couple weeks old and already is it falling apart? >> it hasn't been tested yet. i mean, i think that the vote was -- if you like bipartisanship, you will love the vote, because not only was support bipartisan but the opposition is bipart r partisan, when you have ted cruz and elizabeth warren on the same side, the no side -- >> woodruff: different. different, true, but rand paul is sort of uneasy about the intervention and i think you had an interesting moment with the generals where they were arguing we need more troops, and the president really went out of his way to assert kind of civilian control, and to say, you know, they can say what they want, but i am committed not to putting american ground troops, combat troops in.
and so, i think the test here -- i don't think the limits on the president are i political, i dot think the limits on the president are from his own military. the limits are will this strategy work? i think americans basically don't want to commit ground troops and, yet, these polls suggest they worry that anything we touch in iraq will not work the way we intended, and there's some reason for them to feel that way. >> there are two strategies here from the president. the first is we will degrade i.s.i.s. the second is we will not commit ground troops. those two things may not be true. which one will he choose? is he going to leave office or is the islamic state as powerful as it is now? it's not a big invasion of the special operations forces. used to say, planning is everything but plans are nothing. which means you go in with a strategy but you have to adjust. i suspect there will be a lot of adjustment in ways we can't foresee now. >> i think a lot depends on how
quickly do we expect to get this done, and all the tests run including from the military suggests this is a very long-term operation, and the hope is that not only can you get the iraqi military back into a position where they can fight again, but they're going to try to build, to create these seminational guard units. that will take time and it's a lot to hang on new national guard units. but i think there's not a lot of treasure to get this done tomorrow morning, which is why i think he can hold his ground for a while on the combat troops. >> woodruff: is it wise to rule out ground troops, though, before this even begins? >> i don't think so. i think you have a strategy and then the means to get there. whether you have ground troops or not is the means. the strategy is to degrade i.s.i.s. so you should leave all your means on the table. doesn't mean you want to do it, but sending special operations forces to locate terrorists and
things like that, that may be necessary. if you are committed to the mission, then you should have maximum flexibility about having it there. >> a statement to our allies, particularly the middle east, saying we can't do all this ourselves. we have no intention of doing what we did last time, so you have to step up, too, so there must be something strategic about it as well. >> woodruff: change the subject to someone who saw herself having hiccups and problems a few years ago when she ran for president over her iraq position. hillary clinton in iowa this weekend, telling a big grout at the tom harkin final steak fry that, yes, she's thinking about running for president again. do we learn something from this? do we learn she's farther down the road? do we learn anything about whether people want her to run? >> people do want her to run. she's a favorite. what we haven't learned is what the message is. what she's within saying so far is a message of economic
security, basically a standard democratic message. it's not particularly new but may be effective. if i'm looking at hillary clinton, i do think there's going to be opposition on the left in university towns, in the more progressive side, there's clearly a desire for something on the left, and there's the problem of age and the fact that she seems to be from the 1990s. so, to me, the impulse is to be conservative and coast to the nomination, that the imperative is to be new and say we're not just going back to the clinton careers, i've got a new theme, a new agenda, a new argument. i think the desire to take risks is one of the way to look at the clinton campaign, is it really a risk-taking new thing. >> woodruff: how do you see that? >> the fact she's back in iowa is a pretty sure indication she's running because after those caucuses, she never wanted to go back there. she noted she hasn't been there
since 2008. and i think she is trying to find for this -- for 2016 very similar ground to what bill clinton found in 1992, but it doesn't mean it's exactly the same ground. clinton, bill clinton was very good at, on the one hand, being a new democrat, having new ideas, but he still in many ways was an old-fashioned democrat talking about inequality, taxing, and put that together. doing that in 2016 probably requires hillary clinton to be a little tougher on the left side. she has to be tougher on inequality, which she was, and she spoke very strongly about that. she's talking a lot about women, particularly working class women and what they're going through, and i think she is trying to create the same thing but, all these years later, it has to be a slightly different tack. >> woodruff: is she saying enough at this point, david?
is this sort of teasing with a comment every few weeks soar, is that where she ought to be at this point in september of 2014? >> yeah. wait till the mid-term and then you can get serious. i think it would be premature, immature, overmature -- (laughter) >> woodruff: we were following her. we had a camera crew and followed her in iowa this weekend. we were there also to cover the senate race, a close race between the democrat and the republican. a few things have happened on the senate landscape this week. there's that race that's gotten a little bit tighter just in the last few days. kansas, the race that we thought senator pat robertson had it in a walk. the ballot changed, the democrat's out, ruining against an incumbent. how do you see the senate
landscape and what does it feel like? >> this may prove i'm a self-hating pundit but i love the fact the pundits can't figure it out. you have the complicated mathematical models that say 5 #-49 the republicans will take over. that's a very sophisticated way of saying who knows? i think what governs this election overall is republicans hoping and believing president obama's unpopularity is enough to carry them through, and the president is down, but the republicans aren't really offering very much, and a lot of these democrats are saying, wait a minute, what would you cut? what kinds of -- do you have anything for working people who are -- who have been hammered by this economy? so i think you have an electorate who hands figured out what this campaign is about because i don't think the politicians have figured what it's about. i think kansas is a state that's going to be perhaps the most interesting state in the country because you not only have an
independent running against a republican andish so, you have a chance of a republican losing for the first time since the new deal, but you also have an amazing race, governor brownback where the budgets is in a mess, people worried about cuts in education, the democrats could win that, joe scarborough, former congressman, made a point that in 1978 prop 13 made tax cutting the central republican issue. this might be the first election the republican governor loses because he cut taxes too much. an amazing thing going on. >> woodruff: do you see things still unsettled in mid-september? >> we know where they are now but don't know where they will be in six weeks, but i think this pundit has it figured out. we see, clearly, a national tide. you look at the "new york times" poll that came out, obama is down, huge national tide.
so fit becomes a national election which the republicans are trying to make it, they will do well. against that, you see individual states, some shift in the democratic direction, north carolina, particularly, a shift there, the situation in kansas, a few other places. to me, the bottom line -- and the democrats are trying to make it a bunch of local races. when you have one party trying to do national, one local, usually the national tends to do better, so i do still think the republicans are likely to take it over, but, you know, that could all shift. >> the premature punditry! (laughter) >> woodruff: but you think things are still -- >> i think one of the striking things in the punditry is people were assaying this is heavy on the republicans. you see it pulling back. iowa is the case where the race has probably moved a little democratic. a bunch of states where that happened. >> georgia, too. the point i would make is there
are some states the republicans can pick up. the democrats are defending on so many fronts. >> they started with three, need three more. >> woodruff: the two of you are terrific and glad you're here. e.j. dionne, david brooks, thank you. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. secretary of state kerry said there is a role for iran in a coalition against islamic state militants. but iran's foreign minister told the newshour that tehran does not believe the u.s. is serious about the effort. shares in the chinese e-commerce giant alibaba began trading on wall street, in the biggest initial public offering ever. on the newshour online right now, we turn to our student reporting labs network to examine how teens are reacting to the recent trend of domestic violence cases against high profile n.f.l. athletes. students from across the country
weighed in when we asked: should professional athletes be responsible for modeling good behavior? >> my reaction to the adrian peterson sit doesn't surprise me because professional athletes mess up all the time and major athletes like these will mess up sometimes. >> in my opinion, professional athletes do have an obligation to be role models because, no matter what, someone is going to be looking up to them and whatever the athlete does, their fans will think it's okay, whether illegal or good. >> he's not a superhero, somebody who's going to be saving the world. they're all great players. they're football players. they're not trying to be anybody's role model. i think the parents have to be their children's role model so they can teach their kids to be the best they can be. >> woodruff: all that and more from the student reporting labs on our web site,
pbs.org/newshour. to tomorrow's edition of pbs newshour weekend looks at the high profits rolling into colorado's marijuana businesses. nine months after recreational use was legalized. and we'll be back, right here, on monday, when we head to florida, for a look at the most expensive race for governor in the country. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york. a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org.
>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... and friends of the newshour. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
. this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. new kid in town. and traders could not get enough of him. jack ma brings his alibaba to a mobbed market. it is a smashing debut for the biggest initial stock offering ever. but should you buy the shares now? get in line, people across the country waited for hours, even days with a single goal, to buy the new iphone. today, they could and did. and power sharing. can two people both with the title co-ceo run a company successfully together? the answer may surprise you. all that and more on "nightly business report" for friday, september 19th. good evening, everyone and welcome. on a day that saw the dow rise to